From toilet seats to movie tickets: the evolution of media barter
08.10.2025,
14:19
Those veterans of the media market who still have memories of the tumultuous 1990s will likely remember the peak of barter.
YEREVAN, October 8. /ARKA/. Those veterans of the media market who still have memories of the tumultuous 1990s will likely remember the peak of barter. During that time, advertising was brazenly traded for vodka, pickles, and even, to be candid, toilet seats.
The rationale was straightforward and unambiguous: whoever created it compensated with what they had.
With vodka and pickles, the situation was clear—the times were tough, hungry, and frigid. Such items held at least some value and served a genuine purpose. However, what the editorial team was supposed to do with twenty toilet seats remains a philosophical inquiry.
Yet, despite its absurdity, that barter system possessed one undeniable advantage: transparency. No one attempted to present the toilet seats as a unique opportunity or an exclusive deal. At that time, it appeared to be a necessary solution: money was scarce, but the demand for promotion persisted. It was a sort of equivalent to economic survival.
Information Partnership: A Misleading Term for an Imbalanced Exchange
In contrast, the current landscape has shifted significantly. Emails featuring "enticing" proposals for "information partnerships" frequently land in editorial inboxes. The typical package resembles the following:
- your logo displayed on the event website (with an attendance of 100 people annually);
- a prominent position in an advertising brochure with a distribution of 50 copies;
- a banner at our major event, along with two tickets to the cinema, theater, or a business dinner (at best).
Sounds appealing, doesn’t it? Let’s be candid! Colleagues, stop playing hide-and-seek. Let's be honest: few people visit your website. The "Our Partners" section sometimes resembles a mass grave of logos, containing dozens of companies whose existence visitors don't even know exist.
Well, a banner in the far corner of an event will go just as unnoticed as the event itself. And tickets to the cinema, theater, or business dinner—thanks, of course, but we can afford them ourselves. This isn't the level of motivation that will force us to reconsider our editorial policy.
Well, a banner in a far corner of an event will go unnoticed, just like the event itself. And tickets to the cinema, theater, or business dinner—thanks, of course, but we can afford them ourselves. This isn't the level of motivation that would force us to reconsider our editorial policy.
However, the expectations from the media are of a completely different magnitude: the publication of two detailed press releases, three full-length interviews, five informational materials, and a banner prominently displayed on the website.
Simple arithmetic shows: on the one hand, these are symbolic gestures, on the other, a significant investment of resources and time for professionals.
What are the senders counting on?
What are the companies producing such offers at a rapid pace akin to a conveyor belt hoping to achieve? Perhaps they genuinely trust in the gullibility of journalists or are anticipating that someone will take the bait with such an unattractive proposition. Naturally, there are exceptions. These are truly remarkable events characterized by genuine exclusivity and organized by highly reputable entities. We are prepared to compete for the opportunity to participate in such events. However, such offers are infrequent, reinforcing the overarching principle of mediocrity. For instance, ARKA was honored to accept the invitation from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to serve as the virtually exclusive local media sponsor for the bank's annual meeting and business forum held in Yerevan last May.
We also endorse numerous initiatives in Armenia, particularly those that are cultural, charitable, and socially significant projects.
Three Paths to Effective Cooperation
Dear colleagues from the event and PR sectors, there exist at least three genuine methods to forge partnerships.
Path one: equitable exchange. If you desire publications, provide something of equivalent value. Exclusive content, restricted access to top speakers, a legitimate advertising platform with a quantifiable audience.
Path two: value creation. Elevate your event to such importance that the media will eagerly seek accreditation. Curate a distinguished lineup of experts, and develop a truly engaging agenda.
Option three: fair compensation. The most straightforward approach is to operate based on a pricing structure. Advertising and special projects incur costs, quality content is produced by professionals, and journalistic time has a distinctly defined value. Yet, even in this scenario, we are willing to make concessions and present exclusive terms—the key is that our work is appropriately valued.
Postscript: From Toilet Seats to Fairness
I trust that for the majority of media organizations, the era of compensating with plumbing fixtures has permanently ended. However, the concept of fair and equivalent exchange is still as pertinent as ever. The standard of fairness should now focus not on the number of toilets, but rather on the genuine value provided to the media audience and the professional community.
Media barter can and should be practiced, but it must be founded on mutual benefit and sound judgment. Ultimately, everyone desires to receive high-quality content, rather than poorly constructed, confusing information.
Konstantin Petrovsov
Director of ARKA news agency
The rationale was straightforward and unambiguous: whoever created it compensated with what they had.
With vodka and pickles, the situation was clear—the times were tough, hungry, and frigid. Such items held at least some value and served a genuine purpose. However, what the editorial team was supposed to do with twenty toilet seats remains a philosophical inquiry.
Yet, despite its absurdity, that barter system possessed one undeniable advantage: transparency. No one attempted to present the toilet seats as a unique opportunity or an exclusive deal. At that time, it appeared to be a necessary solution: money was scarce, but the demand for promotion persisted. It was a sort of equivalent to economic survival.
Information Partnership: A Misleading Term for an Imbalanced Exchange
In contrast, the current landscape has shifted significantly. Emails featuring "enticing" proposals for "information partnerships" frequently land in editorial inboxes. The typical package resembles the following:
- your logo displayed on the event website (with an attendance of 100 people annually);
- a prominent position in an advertising brochure with a distribution of 50 copies;
- a banner at our major event, along with two tickets to the cinema, theater, or a business dinner (at best).
Sounds appealing, doesn’t it? Let’s be candid! Colleagues, stop playing hide-and-seek. Let's be honest: few people visit your website. The "Our Partners" section sometimes resembles a mass grave of logos, containing dozens of companies whose existence visitors don't even know exist.
Well, a banner in the far corner of an event will go just as unnoticed as the event itself. And tickets to the cinema, theater, or business dinner—thanks, of course, but we can afford them ourselves. This isn't the level of motivation that will force us to reconsider our editorial policy.
Well, a banner in a far corner of an event will go unnoticed, just like the event itself. And tickets to the cinema, theater, or business dinner—thanks, of course, but we can afford them ourselves. This isn't the level of motivation that would force us to reconsider our editorial policy.
However, the expectations from the media are of a completely different magnitude: the publication of two detailed press releases, three full-length interviews, five informational materials, and a banner prominently displayed on the website.
Simple arithmetic shows: on the one hand, these are symbolic gestures, on the other, a significant investment of resources and time for professionals.
What are the senders counting on?
What are the companies producing such offers at a rapid pace akin to a conveyor belt hoping to achieve? Perhaps they genuinely trust in the gullibility of journalists or are anticipating that someone will take the bait with such an unattractive proposition. Naturally, there are exceptions. These are truly remarkable events characterized by genuine exclusivity and organized by highly reputable entities. We are prepared to compete for the opportunity to participate in such events. However, such offers are infrequent, reinforcing the overarching principle of mediocrity. For instance, ARKA was honored to accept the invitation from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to serve as the virtually exclusive local media sponsor for the bank's annual meeting and business forum held in Yerevan last May.
We also endorse numerous initiatives in Armenia, particularly those that are cultural, charitable, and socially significant projects.
Three Paths to Effective Cooperation
Dear colleagues from the event and PR sectors, there exist at least three genuine methods to forge partnerships.
Path one: equitable exchange. If you desire publications, provide something of equivalent value. Exclusive content, restricted access to top speakers, a legitimate advertising platform with a quantifiable audience.
Path two: value creation. Elevate your event to such importance that the media will eagerly seek accreditation. Curate a distinguished lineup of experts, and develop a truly engaging agenda.
Option three: fair compensation. The most straightforward approach is to operate based on a pricing structure. Advertising and special projects incur costs, quality content is produced by professionals, and journalistic time has a distinctly defined value. Yet, even in this scenario, we are willing to make concessions and present exclusive terms—the key is that our work is appropriately valued.
Postscript: From Toilet Seats to Fairness
I trust that for the majority of media organizations, the era of compensating with plumbing fixtures has permanently ended. However, the concept of fair and equivalent exchange is still as pertinent as ever. The standard of fairness should now focus not on the number of toilets, but rather on the genuine value provided to the media audience and the professional community.
Media barter can and should be practiced, but it must be founded on mutual benefit and sound judgment. Ultimately, everyone desires to receive high-quality content, rather than poorly constructed, confusing information.
Konstantin Petrovsov
Director of ARKA news agency
